An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon (Introduction)

TONY:Genetic information:
1 That no natural process will add Functions to a species that it did not already possess. This does not preclude appropriating an existing functions by altering its input parameters to achieve a different output.

If I’ve understood your terminology correctly, I would have thought this provided a possible clue to the mechanism for common descent, but we simply do not know whether “different outputs” can extend so far as to creating new functions.

2 That random mutations can not create new information for Natural Selection to act on.

Agreed.

4 It is impossible for life to evolve, increase in complexity, without the addition of information.5 There is no known natural process for increasing biological information.

I'm not convinced that the symbiotic merging of cells/cell communities is to be discounted, but I'll certainly agree that nobody knows how speciation (which necessitates increasing biological information) took place, and that is why there are different theories.

TONY: If random mutations can not account for new functionality, then common descent is irrelevant, as is the concept of 'evolving' from simpler to more complex.

Design can account for new functionality. Common descent is simply the theory that all organisms have descended from earlier organisms, reaching back to the first forms of life. To what is it irrelevant?

TONY: So, yes, my hypothesis tackles both of the elements of the Theory of Evolution: Common Descent and Natural Selection through random mutation as a means for increased complexity.

Calling it irrelevant is hardly tackling it. If you can provide experimental evidence that organisms can spring from nowhere without any predecessor, then you will certainly have a scientific case against common descent and for separate creation.

TONY: I am truly tired of arguing over the TITLE of this friggin piece rather than the content of it, which is what has been happening since I posted it. […] Argue the science of my hypothesis.

I understand your frustration, but the title only encapsulates what I see as your narrow view of evolution. I have repeatedly agreed with the science of your hypothesis for intelligent design. Design, random mutations and gradualism are not an issue between us. The issue is your insistence that your theory of intelligent design invalidates the theory of common descent - the bedrock of the theory of evolution. Today, however, you have introduced a new line of argument, which may lead to a more fruitful discussion. I pointed out that design does not provide an alternative to common descent.

TONY: It does just that if you follow it to its logical conclusion by stating that ecological needs would be shown to be the cause for genetic similarity instead of descent, in agreement with the evidence.

Where do we begin? Ecological needs will cover the whole planet. Is it not conceivable that as early life spread into different environments, a designed mechanism for evolution enabled the descendants from those first life forms to adapt and innovate in order to cope with or exploit the new conditions?

TONY: The recent research tears down most of the foundations that both common descent and random mutations are built upon, and follow the idea of a designed language for all life, with species entering and exiting in punctuated equilibrium, at specifically time events, fully formed, and then mutating almost not at all between the last bottle neck and now, with no transitional fossils.

I don’t have a problem with the removal of random mutations, with punctuated equilibrium, or with long periods of stasis. “Fully formed” is the great argument against common descent, as exemplified by the Cambrian explosion. David sees that as an instance of his God dabbling. My hypothesis is that a dramatic change in the environment (oxygen being the key) would have offered scope for a dramatic period of inventiveness by the (perhaps God-given) inventive mechanism of cellular intelligence. I think we would all agree that “ecological needs” (I would add opportunities) are a major factor in our hypotheses. The disagreement lies in our guesses as to the means by which organisms cope with or exploit their changing environments. All these guesses involve what you have rightly called “fantastic” explanations, and belief in them requires faith.

TONY: A recent study shows that despite geographical (Population) separation, environmental niche served as a way of 'predicting evolutionary repetition'. If it is predictable and repeats, it is non-random. If they are geographically separate, it is not common descent. Instead, as I predicted you see creatures programmed to deal with their environment using the similar programming for similar ecological niches.

I agree that it is not random. Convergent evolution can be explained by the hypothesis that organisms facing the same problems will come up with the same solutions, regardless of geographical separation. But if we are talking of common descent, geographical separation is chapter two in the history. As above, the proposal is that life began with a few forms or one, and these forms over hundreds of millions of years spread across the planet, constantly adapting and innovating in accordance with the ecological needs and opportunities that arose. Geographical separation does not preclude common descent.